Mutual intelligibility explained

In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between different but related language varieties in which speakers of the different varieties can readily understand each other without prior familiarity or special effort. Mutual intelligibility is sometimes used to distinguish languages from dialects, although sociolinguistic factors are often also used.

Intelligibility between varieties can be asymmetric; that is, speakers of one variety can better understand another than vice versa. Among other examples, this is the case between Afrikaans and Dutch.

In a dialect continuum, neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but differences mount with distance, so that more widely separated varieties may not be mutually intelligible. Intelligibility can be partial, as is the case with Azerbaijani and Turkish, or significant, as is the case with Bulgarian and Macedonian. However, sign languages, such as American and British Sign Language, usually do not exhibit mutual intelligibility with each other.

Types

Asymmetric intelligibility

Asymmetric intelligibility refers to two languages that are considered partially mutually intelligible, but for various reasons, one group of speakers has more difficulty understanding the other language than the other way around. For example, if one language is related to another but has simplified its grammar, the speakers of the original language may understand the simplified language, but not vice versa. To illustrate, Dutch speakers tend to find it easier to understand Afrikaans as a result of Afrikaans's simplified grammar.

Among sign languages

Sign languages are not universal and usually not mutually intelligible,^[1] although there are also similarities among different sign languages. Sign languages are independent of spoken languages and follow their own linguistic development. For example, British Sign Language and American Sign Language (ASL) are quite different linguistically and mutually unintelligible, even though the non-hard-of-hearing people of the United Kingdom and the United States share the same spoken language. The grammar of sign languages does not usually resemble that of the spoken languages used in the same geographical area. To illustrate, in terms of syntax, ASL shares more in common with spoken Japanese than with English.^[2]

As a criterion for distinguishing languages

Almost all linguists use mutual intelligibility as the primary linguistic criterion for determining whether two speech varieties represent the same or different languages.^{[3] [4]}

A primary challenge to this position is that speakers of closely related languages can often communicate with each other effectively if they choose to do so. In the case of transparently cognate languages recognized as distinct such as Spanish and Italian, mutual intelligibility is in principle and in practice not binary (simply yes or no), but occurs in varying degrees, subject to numerous variables specific to individual speakers in the context of the communication.

Classifications may also shift for reasons external to the languages themselves. As an example, in the case of a linear dialect continuum, the central varieties may become extinct, leaving only the varieties at both ends. Consequently, these end varieties may be reclassified as two languages, even though no significant linguistic change has occurred within the two extremes during the extinction of the central varieties.

Furthermore, political and social conventions often override considerations of mutual intelligibility. For example, the varieties of Chinese are often considered a single language, even though there is usually no mutual intelligibility between geographically separated varieties. This is similarly the case among the varieties of Arabic, which also share a single prestige variety in Modern Standard Arabic. In contrast, there is often significant intelligibility between different North Germanic languages. However, because there are various standard forms of the North Germanic languages, they are classified as separate languages.^[5]

Within dialect continua

North Germanic

Northern Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia form a dialect continuum where the two furthermost dialects have almost no mutual intelligibility. As such, spoken Danish and Swedish normally have low mutual intelligibility, but Swedes in the Öresund region (including Malmö and Helsingborg), across the strait from the Danish capital Copenhagen, understand Danish somewhat better, largely due to the proximity of the region to Danish-speaking areas. While Norway was under Danish rule, the Bokmål written standard of Norwegian developed from Dano-Norwegian, a koiné language that evolved among the urban elite in Norwegian cities during the later years of the union. Additionally, Norwegian assimilated a considerable amount of Danish vocabulary as well as traditional Danish expressions.^[6] As a consequence, spoken mutual intelligibility is not reciprocal.^[6]

Romance

See main article: Classification of Romance languages. Because of the difficulty of imposing boundaries on a continuum, various counts of the Romance languages are given. For example, in The Linguasphere register of the world's languages and speech communities, David Dalby lists 23 languages based on mutual intelligibility:^[7]

• Iberian Romance: Portuguese, Galician, Mirandese, Astur-Leonese, Castilian, Aragonese;
• Occitano-Romance: Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian;
• Gallo-Romance: Langues d'oïl (including French), Piedmontese, Franco-Provençal;
• Rhaeto-Romance: Romansh, Ladin, Friulian;
• Gallo-Italic: Piedmontese, Ligurian, Lombard, Emilian-Romagnol, Venetian;
• Italo-Dalmatian (including Italian): Corsican, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Istriot, Dalmatian (extinct);
• Eastern Romance: Daco-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian.

South Slavic

See main article: South Slavic languages. The non-standard vernacular dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Kajkavian, Chakavian and Torlakian) diverge more significantly from all four normative varieties of Serbo-Croatian. Their mutual intelligibility varies greatly between the dialects themselves, with the standard Shtokavian dialect, and with other languages. For example, Torlakian, which is considered a subdialect of Serbian Old Shtokavian, has significant mutual intelligibility with Macedonian and Bulgarian.^[8]

List of mutually intelligible languages

Afroasiatic

See main article: Afroasiatic languages.

• Tunisian Arabic and Libyan Arabic (68–70% of sentences)
• Tunisian Arabic and Maltese (32–33% of sentences; Maltese is written with the Latin script while Tunisian Arabic is written with the Arabic script)^[9]

Atlantic–Congo

See main article: Atlantic–Congo languages.

• Kinyarwanda and Kirundi
• Luganda and Lusoga (partially)^[10]
• Nkore and Kiga^[11]
• Zulu, Northern Ndebele (partially),^[12] Xhosa (partially),^[12] and Swazi (partially)^[12]

Austronesian

See main article: Austronesian languages.

• Iban and Malay, especially with Sarawakian Malay (partially)^[13]
• Tokelauan and Tuvaluan

Indo-European

See main article: Indo-European languages.

Germanic

See main article: Germanic languages.

• Danish, Norwegian and Swedish^[14] (partially and asymmetrically)^[6]
• Dutch and Afrikaans (in written form; in spoken form partially)^{[6] [15]}
• Dutch and West Frisian (partially)^[6]
• German and Yiddish^[16]

Romance

See main article: Romance languages.

• Portuguese and Galician (significantly)^[17]
• Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian (significantly)^[18]
• Spanish and Italian^[19]
• Spanish and Judaeo-Spanish (spoken or written in the Latin alphabet; Judaeo-Spanish may also be written in the Hebrew alphabet). Depending on dialect and the number of non-Spanish loanwords used.^{[20] [21] [22] [23]}
• Spanish and Portuguese (moderately)^[19]

Slavic

See main article: Slavic languages.

• Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish^[24]
• Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (partially)^[25]
• Czech and Slovak (significantly)^[26]
• Macedonian and Bulgarian (significantly)^[27]
• Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian (moderately to significantly)^[28]
• Polish and Czech (partially and asymmetrically)^[29]
• Polish and Slovak (reasonably to partially)^{[26] [30]}
• Slovene and Serbo-Croatian (moderately)^[31]

Other subdivisions

• Irish and Scottish Gaelic (partially)^[32]
• Marathi and certain dialects of Konkani (significantly)^[33]

Sino-Tibetan

See main article: Sino-Tibetan languages.

• Akha, Honi and Hani (variety of different written scripts)^[34]
• Dungan and Mandarin, especially with Central Plains Mandarin^[35]

Turkic

See main article: Turkic languages.

• Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum^[36] (partially)^[37]
• Uzbek and Uyghur^[38]

Uralic

See main article: Uralic languages.

• Finnish and Estonian (partially)^[39]
• Finnish and Karelian (significantly)^[40]

Other

• Manchu and Xibe
• Thai, Southern Thai, Lao (Isan), Northern Thai, Shan and Tai Lue^[41]

List of dialects or varieties sometimes considered separate languages

See also: Language secessionism and Pluricentric language.

• Catalan: Valencianthe standard forms are structurally the same language and share the vast majority of their vocabulary, and hence highly mutually intelligible. They are considered separate languages only for political reasons.^[42]
• Hindustani: Hindi and Urdu^[43]
• Malay: Indonesian (the standard regulated by Indonesia),^[44] Brunei^[45] and Malaysian (the standard used in Malaysia and Singapore). Both varieties are based on the same material basis and hence are generally mutually intelligible, despite the numerous lexical differences.^[46] Certain linguistic sources also treat the two standards on equal standing as varieties of the same Malay language.^[47] However, vernacular or less formal varieties spoken between these two countries share limited intelligibility, evidenced by Malaysians having difficulties understanding Indonesian sinetron (soap opera) aired on their TV stations (which actually uses a colloquial offshoot heavily influenced by Betawi vernacular of Jakarta^[48] rather than the formal standard acquired in academical contexts) and vice versa.^[49]
• Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA): NENA is a dialect continuum, with some dialects being mutually intelligible and others not.^[50] While Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic and Zakho Christian Neo-Aramaic are mutually intelligible, especially on the eastern edge of the continuum (in Iran), Jewish and Christian NENA varieties spoken in the same town are not mutually intelligible.^{[51] [52]}
• Persian: Iranian Persian (natively simply known as Persian), Dari and TajikPersian and Dari are written in Perso-Arabic script, while Tajik is written in Cyrillic script.^[53]
• Serbo-Croatian: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbianthe national varieties are structurally the same language, all constituting normative varieties of the Shtokavian dialect, and hence mutually intelligible,^{[54] [55]} spoken and written (if the Latin alphabet is used).^{[56] [57]} For political reasons, they are sometimes considered distinct languages.^[58]

See also

• Dialect levelling
• Lexical similarity
• Lingua franca
• Multilingualism
• Non-convergent discourse
• Sister language

Further reading

• Book: Dialect intelligibility testing . Eugene H. . Casad . . 1974 . 978-0-88312-040-8 .
• Book: Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties . Charlotte . Gooskens . 195–213 . http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/publ_handbook_of_sociolinguistics_2013.pdf . The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics . Robert . Bayley . Richard . Cameron . Ceil. Lucas. Ceil Lucas . Oxford University Press . 2013 . 978-0-19-974408-4 .
• Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe . Charlotte . Gooskens . Vincent J. . van Heuven . Jelena . Golubović . Anja . Schüppert . Femke . Swarte . Stefanie . Voigt . International Journal of Multilingualism . 15 . 2 . 169–193 . 2017 . 10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185 . 54519054 . free .
• Dialects as Optimal Communication Networks . Joseph E. . Grimes . Language . 50 . 2 . 1974 . 260–269 . 412437 . 10.2307/412437 .

External links

• Harold Schiffman, "Linguists' Definition: mutual intelligibility". University of Pennsylvania.

Notes and References

1. Web site: Linguistic society . What is Sign Language?. 10 March 2018. live . https://web.archive.org/web/20180213195125/https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/what-sign-language. 13 February 2018.
2. [Karen Nakamura|Nakamura, Karen]
3. Book: Gröschel, Bernhard. Bernhard Gröschel . 2009 . de . Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit . Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute . Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics ; vol 34 . Munich . Lincom Europa . 132–136 . 978-3-929075-79-3 . 428012015 . 2009473660 . 15295665W.
4. See e.g. P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, OUP 2007, p. 103.
5. Book: Chambers. J.K.. Jack Chambers (linguist). Trudgill. Peter. Peter Trudgill. Dialectology. Cambridge University Press. 2nd. 1998. 978-0-521-59646-6. 3–4.
6. The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages . Charlotte. Gooskens . Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 28. 6. 2007 . 2010-05-19. 10.2167/jmmd511.0. 445. 10.1.1.414.7645 . 18875358 .
7. David Dalby, 1999/2000, The Linguasphere register of the world's languages and speech communities. Observatoire Linguistique, Linguasphere Press. Volume 2, p. 390-410 (zone 51). Oxford.http://www.linguasphere.info/lcontao/tl_files/pdf/master/OL-SITE%201999-2000%20MASTER%20ONE%20Sectors%205-Zones%2050-54.pdf
8. Book: Радева, Василка. Българският език през ХХ век. 15 July 2018. Pensoft Publishers. Google Books. 9789546421135.
9. Čéplö. Slavomír. Bátora. Ján. Benkato. Adam. Milička. Jiří. Pereira. Christophe. Zemánek. Petr. 2016-01-01. Mutual intelligibility of spoken Maltese, Libyan Arabic, and Tunisian Arabic functionally tested: A pilot study. Folia Linguistica. 50. 2. 10.1515/flin-2016-0021. 151878153. 0165-4004.
10. Book: Hyman, Larry . Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar . 2020-09-15 . Language Science Press . 978-3-96110-275-4 . 1st . Berlin . 253–276 . en . In search of prosodic domains in Lusoga.
11. Book: Poletto, Robert E. . Topics in RuNyankore Phonology . 1998 . Ohio State University . en.
12. Web site: Angogo. Rachel. LANGUAGE AND POLITICS IN SOUTH AFRICA. Studies in African Linguistics Volume 9, Number 2. elanguage.net. 30 September 2013.
13. Book: The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives . 2006 . ANU Press . 978-1-920942-85-4 . Bellwood . Peter . Canberra . en . 10.22459/a.09.2006 . Fox . James J. . Tryon . Darrell . free.
14. Bø. I. 1976. Ungdom og naboland : en undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabospråkforståelsen. Rogalandsforskning. 4.
15. C. . Gooskens . R. . Van Bezooijen . Mutual Comprehensibility of Written Afrikaans and Dutch: Symmetrical or Asymmetrical? . Literary and Linguistic Computing . 21 . 4 . 2006 . 543–557 . 10.1093/llc/fql036 .
16. Book: Avrum Ehrlich, Mark. Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: origins, experience and culture, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. 2009. 978-1-85109-873-6. 192.
17. Beswick . Jaine . 2005 . Linguistic homogeneity in Galician and Portuguese borderland communities. Estudios de Sociolingüística . 6 . 1. 39–64.
18. https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9083828/Romanian-language Romanian language – Britannica Online Encyclopedia
19. News: Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages within the Romance language family. 113 . Voigt . Stefanie . 2014 .
20. Book: Tomić . Olga Mišeska . Balkan Syntax and Semantics . 2004 . John Benjamins Publishing . 978-90-272-2790-4 . 461 . en.
21. Book: Faingold . Eduardo D. . Child Language, Creolization, and Historical Change: Spanish in Contact with Portuguese . 1996 . Gunter Narr Verlag . 978-3-8233-4715-6 . 110 . en.
22. Book: Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria: WPLC. . 1997 . WPLC, Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria . 66 . en.
23. Book: Ben-Ur . Aviva . Levy . Louis Nissim . A Ladino Legacy: The Judeo-Spanish Collection of Louis N. Levy . 2001 . Alexander Books . 978-1-57090-160-7 . 10 . en.
24. Web site: Łabowicz. Ludmiła. Gdzie "sicz", a gdzie "porohy"?! (ст. 15), Part II. https://web.archive.org/web/20130501025506/http://www.nadbuhom.pl/art_2638.html. 2013-05-01. 19 July 2014.
25. Alexander M. Schenker. 1993. "Proto-Slavonic," The Slavonic Languages. (Routledge). Pp. 60–121. Pg. 60: "[The] distinction between dialect and language being blurred, there can be no unanimity on this issue in all instances..."
    C.F. Voegelin and F.M. Voegelin. 1977. Classification and Index of the World's Languages (Elsevier). Pg. 311, "In terms of immediate mutual intelligibility, the East Slavic zone is a single language."
    Bernard Comrie. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union (Cambridge). Pg. 145–146: "The three East Slavonic languages are very close to one another, with very high rates of mutual intelligibility...The separation of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian as distinct languages is relatively recent...Many Ukrainians in fact speak a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian, finding it difficult to keep the two languages apart...
26. Book: Trudgill, Peter . Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective . Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe . Peter Trudgill . Duszak . Anna . Okulska . Urszula . Peter Lang . Polish Studies in English Language and Literature 11 . 2004 . 978-0-8204-7328-4.
27. http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?menu=004&LangID=42 Language profile Macedonian
28. http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?menu=004&LangID=42 Macedonian language
29. Book: E. K.. Brown . R. E.. Asher . J. M. Y.. Simpson . Encyclopedia of language & linguistics . 2006 . 978-0-08-044299-0 . Elsevier . 647 . en.
30. Book: Kevin Hannan . Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia . 1996 . 978-0-8204-3365-3 . Peter Lang . 3 . en.
31. Book: Kordić, Snježana. Snježana Kordić. Nomachi. Motoki. Motoki Nomachi. Kamusella. Tomasz. Tomasz Kamusella. Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. 167179. Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372202077. PDF. London. 2024. 10.4324/9781003034025-11. 978-0-367-47191-0. 1390118985. 259576119. 4680766. free. . . https://archive.org/details/kordic-ideology-against-language . 2024-01-10. 2024-01-21. In the Slavic area, there is one instance of a significant asymmetric intelligibility: Slovenians understand Croats better (79.4%) than Croats understand Slovenians (43.7%).. 174. live.
32. Book: International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Christina Bratt Paulston. 110. 9780313244841. 1988. Bloomsbury Academic .
33. Web site: How Konkani Won the Battle for 'Languagehood'. 2021-06-01. www.meertens.knaw.nl.
34. Katsura. M.. 1973. Phonemes of the Alu Dialect of Akha. Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics No.3. 3. 3. 35–54.
35. Rimsky-Korsakoff Dyer. Svetlana. 1977. Soviet Dungan nationalism: a few comments on their origin and language. Monumenta Serica. 33. 349–362. 10.1080/02549948.1977.11745054. 2011-02-15. p. 351.
36. Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya (2004). Ukrayna'daki Urum Türkleri ve Folkloru. Milli Folklor, 2004, Yıl. 16, S. 16, s. 59
37. Book: Sinor, Denis. Inner Asia. History-Civilization-Languages. A syllabus. 1969. Bloomington. 978-0-87750-081-0. 71–96.
38. Web site: Uzbek – the Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies .
39. Book: Katzner, Kenneth . The languages of the world. 105 . Kenneth Katzner. 2002 . Routledge. 978-0-415-25003-0.
40. Book: Taagepera, Rein . The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state. 100 . 1999. Routledge. 978-0-415-91977-7.
41. Web site: Ausbau and Abstand languages. ccat.sas.upenn.edu.
42. http://www.avl.gva.es/img/EdicionsPublicacions/AcordsGenerals/NOMENTITAT.pdf "Dictamen de l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua sobre els principis i criteris per a la defensa de la denominació i l'entitat del valencià"
43. Gumperz . John J. . Language Problems in the Rural Development of North India . The Journal of Asian Studies . 16 . 2 . February 1957 . 251–259 . 10.2307/2941382. 2941382 . 163197752 . free .
44. Book: Swan, Michael . Learner English: a teacher's guide to interference and other problems . 279 . 2001 . Cambridge University Press . 978-0-521-77939-5 .
45. Web site: 29 July 2022 . Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam Indonesia Malaysia (MABBIM) . Malaysian language . 6 February 2023 . Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
46. Book: The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Adelaar. K. Alexander. Himmelmann. Nikolaus. 2013-03-07. Routledge. 9781136755095. en.
47. An example of equal treatment of Malaysian and Indonesian: the Pusat Rujukan Persuratan Melayu database from the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka has a "Istilah MABBIM" section dedicated to documenting Malaysian, Indonesian and Bruneian official terminologies: see example
48. 194 . John . Bowden . Towards an account of information structure in Colloquial Jakarta Indonesian . Proceedings of the International Workshop on Information Structure of Austronesian Languages, 10 April 2014 . Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
49. Web site: Indonesian-Malay mutual intelligibility?. Setiono. Sugiharto. 25 October 2008. 6 December 2019.
50. Book: Gutman . Ariel . Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic . 2018 . Language Science Press . 978-3-96110-081-1 . 1 . en.
51. Book: Hauenschild . Ingeborg . Kellner-Heinkele . Barbara . Kappler . Matthias . Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe - Bir ṣadbarg lāla: Festgabe für Claus Schönig . 2020 . Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG . 978-3-11-220924-0 . 361 . de.
52. Book: Sabar . Yona . A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, Northwestern Iraq : Based on Old and New Manuscripts, Oral and Written Bible Translations, Folkloric Texts, and Diverse Spoken Registers, with an Introduction to Grammar and Semantics, and an Index of Talmudic Words which Have Reflexes in Jewish Neo-Aramaic . 2002 . Otto Harrassowitz Verlag . 978-3-447-04557-5 . 4 . en.
53. Web site: Dari/Persian/Tajik languages.
54. Book: Kordić, Snježana . Snježana Kordić . 2010 . sh . Jezik i nacionalizam . Language and Nationalism . live . Rotulus Universitas . Zagreb . Durieux . 101–108 . 10.2139/ssrn.3467646 . 978-953-188-311-5 . 2011520778 . 729837512 . 15270636W . . 1 June 2012 . https://web.archive.org/web/20120601175359/http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/475567.Jezik_i_nacionalizam.pdf . 3 August 2014.
55. Book: Mader Skender, Mia. Die kroatische Standardsprache auf dem Weg zur Ausbausprache. German. The Croatian standard language on the way to ausbau language. Schlussbemerkung. Summary. PDF. University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Slavonic Studies. UZH Dissertations. 196–197. Zurich. 2022. 10.5167/uzh-215815 . 8 June 2022. Dissertation . Serben, Kroaten, Bosnier und Montenegriner immer noch auf ihren jeweiligen Nationalsprachen unterhalten und problemlos verständigen. Nur schon diese Tatsache zeigt, dass es sich immer noch um eine polyzentrische Sprache mit verschiedenen Varietäten handelt..
56. Book: Šipka, Danko. Danko Sipka. 2019. Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York. Cambridge University Press. 166. 10.1017/9781108685795. 978-953-313-086-6. 150383965. 2018048005 . 1061308790. lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible.
57. Book: Kordić, Snježana . Snježana Kordić . Krause . Marion . Sappok . Christian . Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002 . Slavistishe Beiträge ; vol. 434 . Otto Sagner . 110–114 . de . Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute . Pro and contra: "Serbo-Croatian" nowadays . http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/430499.PRO_UND_KONTRA_SERBOKROATISCH.PDF . Munich . 2004 . 978-3-87690-885-4 . 56198470 . 3434516 . . https://web.archive.org/web/20120601174051/http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/430499.PRO_UND_KONTRA_SERBOKROATISCH.PDF. live. 1 June 2012. (ÖNB).
58. Book: Greenberg, Robert David . Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration . 14 . 2004 . Oxford University Press . 978-0-19-925815-4 .